Australia: Tax authority statement regarding Federal Court decision that taxpayer entitled to interest deductions with respect to foreign related-party financing

Statement summarizes tax authority’s views on the decision

Share
March 4, 2025

The Commissioner of Taxation on February 28, 2025, issued a Decision Impact Statement regarding the Federal Court’s decision in Mylan Australia Holding Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2024] FCA 253 (March 20, 2024), in which the court held that the general anti-avoidance provisions (i.e., Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936) did not apply to deny the taxpayer interest deductions with respect to foreign related-party financing for the acquisition of a third party generic pharmaceutical business. Read TaxNewsFlash

The statement summarizes the Commissioner's views on the decision, including the following points:

  • The decision does not disturb the Commissioner's view that, depending on the relevant facts and circumstances, Part IVA may apply to “debt push-down” schemes.
  • The Commissioner’s abandoning its transfer pricing arguments in the case does not preclude it from pursuing a case that an interest rate is excessive as part of a case under Part IVA. The Commissioner “will consider on a case-by-case basis whether to pursue either, or both, a transfer pricing case and Part IVA case in challenging a debt push-down scheme. The considerations relevant to the application of the transfer pricing provisions in Subdivision 815-B of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 are economically based and invite different considerations to the analysis demanded by Part IVA.”
  • The scheme in the decision pre-dates the introduction of ITAA 1936 s 177CB and was therefore determined under the “old” Part IVA. The “new” Part IVA, ITAA 1936 s 177CB(4)(b) requires the court to disregard the Australian tax implications of a counterfactual when determining the reasonableness of that counterfactual.
  • The fact that a particular commercial transaction is chosen from a number of alternative courses of action because of the tax benefit associated with its adoption will not in and of itself mandate a finding of a dominant tax purpose. Rather whether a dominant tax purpose exists requires a close and careful examination of the facts.


For more information, contact a KPMG tax professional in Australia:

Kristie Schubert | kschubert3@kpmg.com.au

Julian Humphrey | jrhumphrey@kpmg.com.au

Stacey Hannam | shannam@kpmg.com.au

Keith Swan | keithswan@kpmg.com.au

Thank you!

Thank you for contacting KPMG. We will respond to you as soon as possible.

Contact KPMG

Use this form to submit general inquiries to KPMG. We will respond to you as soon as possible.

By submitting, you agree that KPMG LLP may process any personal information you provide pursuant to KPMG LLP's Privacy Statement.

An error occurred. Please contact customer support.

Job seekers

Visit our careers section or search our jobs database.

Submit RFP

Use the RFP submission form to detail the services KPMG can help assist you with.

Office locations

International hotline

You can confidentially report concerns to the KPMG International hotline

Press contacts

Do you need to speak with our Press Office? Here's how to get in touch.

Headline